penworks

I admit my point was not made very clearly...VPW said Paul was the man of god for the church administration. Given that, the church epistles, to my mind would be the ones he wrote. But this conversation is now reminding me that VPW meant ANY books written during this church age, I guess (which he defined as after Pentecost). As someone pointed out, this does present a problem, actually many, because some of these books include quotes from the O.T. etc. and of course, Hebrews is totally off topic if you go by VP's theories of who it was written for, which I believe would have been the "believers of Israel" left here after the gathering together. Something like that. My memory of what VP taught about that book is fading. Anyway... The two books attributed to Peter most probably were written by two different people. Some scholars say many NT books are "pseudonymous" and these two books are in that group most probably. Here's some info I've found helpful for those interested: Pseudonymouse books are " forgeries by people who claim to be someone else. Included in this group is almost certainly 2 Peter, probably the pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, quite likely the deutero-Pauline Epistles of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and possibly 1 Peter and Jude. But why would someone claim to be a famous person from the past? ...it was principally in order to get a hearing for his views." This info is from Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 235. Great reading if you want to know more about how the books of the Bible were determined to be in the canon and who wrote them. Cheers!

Correction: I and II Peter.

Interesting...do they happen to know that nobody really knows who even wrote I Peter? Most scholars say II and II Peter were not written by Paul. But that doesn't matter to them because they think God was the author, right?

I speak this from experience of knowing VPW personally in the early 1970s until he died - in my opinion he was a paranoid sociopath, but I'm not a psychiatrist. To address the items above: I was in the 2nd Corps and NEVER was "taught how to die." In the Advanced Class, VP taught that suicide was caused by devil possession. In Feb. 1976 VP held a meeting in Emporia for all Corps when he thought the USA was on the brink of takeover by the Communists or some such conspiracy. At that time he did encourage everyone to, as you say, "go underground" if needed at the drop of a hat. How this would actually play out was up to each of us...we just had to head for the hills, grow our own food, etc. It was frightening to hear VP talk about this. I believe this episode is covered in the book, The Cult That Snapped, by Karl Khaler. Because sociopaths feel the world revolves around them, everything negative in the world was either a direct or indirect attack on TWI because VP said he was the only one teaching the "accuracy of The Word." It was The Word the devil was out to destroy. Make no mistake, this thinking is still rampant among former TWI followers who still cling to VP and his "Word" dogmas.

Lest any recent walkaways (people leaving TWI) be ignorant of this fact: I'd like to point out that this behavior - mildly called character assassination - BEGAN with VPW. Where do you think the current leaders learned it? Rosie, as you call her, got into TWI in the 1970s and witnessed many people get labeled possessed, etc. by VPW when they left TWI. I was there, too, I heard it, too. I was in meetings with her when VP did that sort of thing. We learned from the master. I shudder to remember... Don't think for a minute LCM "nearly wrecked TWI" as someone put it. It was a wreck from day one, in my opinion, when VP started it. Its foundation was and still is SAND. He stole many other men's so-called research and took the credit. Rosie is perpetuating his methods of operation. I'm not saying this to excuse her, I'm saying it to point out how history is repeating itself at TWI. He allowed no differing of opinion when it came to the basis for his so-called "research." You could not question "inerrancy of the scriptures" which he NEVER showed existed, either. If you had questions about that, you had to go somewhere else to get them, even though we were taught we could ask questions and the ministry would "change when they learned something new." Right! Sound familiar? Pen

Can't think of better advice to anyone they are trying to recruit.

Can you refer us to the place and time of any of these meetings? What years?

I remember at one time in 1984-86 it hung behind the door of one of the small rooms along the hall to the Library upstairs. I often worked in that room. I remember many old Corps meetings when it would be clear VP was very proud of his heritage and used it, I think, to insinuate how God's hand was upon his lineage. He would harkened back to his grandfather's homeland in Ladbergen, Germany. The story goes that after hundreds of years in Ladbergen, his ancestors, who were part of the French Protestant group called Huguenots, arrived in Ohio in 1839. Their hardship story of immigration and hard work was cast in tones that made it sound as if God's hand was upon them to eventually bring forth VP as the man of God for this day and time. One quote I happend to have from an unpublished Way tour script is this: "Most people would not have chosen this rural location for the Headquarters of a worldwide ministry; but this is the location that God prepared through His foreknowledge for the Headquarters of The Way International." Propaganda like this was rampant and apparently still is.

Boy, that first paragraph is a great marketing spin: show how the ministry "learned and changed." But how can you show that if you erase the past? Not to mention the fact VPW claimed from the beginning that he was teaching "the accuracy of the Word" which was in fact, his interpretation. Ah well, let's be glad we're out of TWI. Life is precious. Live every minute fully. Cheers!

My opinion: this is a gigantic waste of time. Get out and enjoy life. It is precious. Love the ones you love. Make friends. Breathe deeply. Cheers, Penworks

Very interesting job you had! WOW. And that doesn't stand for Word over the World, either. This "editing" has a long history beginning at least from my view back in 1985 or so when Rosalie was head of Way Pub. I believe part of the task list at that time was to be sure the Studies in Abundant Living series chapters didn't have any teachings that contradicted other ones. In the Research Dept., the task of "editing" from our view would be impossible, since PFAL is already distributed in many forms. Thus, the teaching on Eli Eli, for instance, could never be corrected or if it were, distributing the new information to everyone on earth who ever took the PFAL would be impossible, too. This was also the case for the problems with other stuff in PFAL that W*later C. knew was mixed up or wrong... Aside from all that, in my view, the entire premise VP started from is an unsubstantiated claim: The Bible is inerrant. Cheers!

Hi, this is Penworks checking in. Nice summary, Chockfull. James, if you're interested, you can check out my story (as nicely referred to above) posted here on the front page. Called, Affinity for Windows, it is a nutshell version of my involvement with the so-called Research Team at TWI. Also there is that old New Lawsuit thread that contains some info on the Aramaic work we did and what happened in 1984-86. Cheers!

Me either. The ECU guys looked up to all those VP helpers, though, as if they were the apostles or something. VP was, after all, the MOG. I first heard that title from the ECU believers and from my view at that time - being 18 years old and feeling I'd found the truth - I bought it all... The limb leaders there, JAL and wife, were totally sold out to TWI, too. The atmosphere in the ECU fellowship was thick with equating TWI with the ministry of Paul in Acts, no doubt about that. It's a good example of how hype can escalate emotions and blur clear thinking - I dropped out of ECU to do the work of the "ministry" before I had even taken PFAL! Looking back, it seemed VP pitted the growing outreach pockets like ECU; Rye, NY, Alameda, CA, and Witchita, KS against each other in a competition to see who could spread "the Word" of VP via PFAL the fastest. That's how I remember it anyway...

Correction: TWLIL book, pg. 139, E*rl B*urton tells that in the summer of 1969, "H*ward, G*ne R*ndall, and Ir* He*rne "came to build the Bible Center in Greenville. I hung around them and helped a little. I thought they were the coolest guys I'd ever met."

Not to my knowledge. You can keep up with Kristen at her blog: http://losingtheway.blogspot.com/

Howard was a construction guy who helped build the old BRC. In around 1969 or so, he also helped VP build the little BRC wannabe building in Greenville, NC in the backyard of the Limb Way Home, a nice house on Fifth Street in Greenville near ECU. That's where I first took PFAL.

It was, believe me. What use is this teaching? If you ask me, it's crazy talk.

Bingo. Lately I've been thinking about how magicians use misdirection to fool their onlookers. In other words, keep them entertained with the left hand while the right hand stuffs the rabbit under the hat, then lift the hat with the left hand and WOW, the tricky rabbit appears seemingly out of nowhere. Something like that. That was VP's M.O.

For me when I came to understand the idea that religions are like masks for this invisible force we call God, then things made more sense. Joseph Campbell has done tons of work in this comparative religion field. Bill Moyers interviewed him in the 1980s and there's a book, The Power of Myth, which is pretty much a transcription of their conversation. I found it helpful as it points out the common ground in religions, which is pretty much the golden rule. But by their actions many times you woulnd't know that's the main idea, sadly. I'll go out on a limb here and say I'm feeling that I'm at the stage where I feel I am part of the fabric of "god" just like everyone and everything else. Those who say Jesus is the only way to God forget that they are reading the gospel of John, written down by someone (or several sources) who heard oral traditions and decided to use that idea as a way to leverage power over other competing ideas about Jesus that were floating around at the time. This is my opinion influenced by people like Elaine Pagels in Beyond Belief, etc. What interests me more these days is the question of consciousness. What is it? Perhas that is meant by "god." There are lots of brilliant minds working on the question that you can read. I like some (and I emphasize SOME) of the articles in the magazine, EnlightenNEXT. It's online and in print. NOTE to Composer: I understand your frustrations with the lame explanations that God has a reason when a baby dies, for instance. They are more than lame, they are offensive and disgusting to me. At any rate, this topic is personal to me because this idea was what kicked off my search for answers in 1968 which led me to accept TWI's lame and offensive answers until I left and kept searching. I watched my mother die when I was 16. The Catholic church told me God wanted her in heaven. I thought, why would he need her more than I do? I don't need a god like that. So, long story short, there I was in TWI brushing off this trauma with the dogma that essentially said, Oh no big deal. You'll see her again at the gathering together (if she was born again). The devil killed her not God. Something about this chills me even now. It dishonors the value of human life. But that's another topic. It makes you value only an imaginary afterlife and not pay attention to making this current life a better one. Anyhow, I appreciate the ideas in this thread but I would caution Composer in two ways: first, try and write your posts with more respect for us who read them. We are people like you, we have feelings, and we might be smarter than you think, so give us some credit before putting us down. Put yourself in our shoes for a minute before posting and ranting - think about how your posts might be received...if the goal is genuine inquiry, a respectful tone can be communicated I think, even inspite of the shortcomings of this way of dialogue - typed words on a screen. Secondly, before you call the Bible a story book in a derogatory way, think about how sacred it is to some people...try and get some more information about just what it is and its history. That can make your critiques of it more readily accepted...at least perhaps more people will listen to your core ideas like how awful it is to tell suffering people God loves them and has a reason for their suffering, which have value to some of us who share them. What helps me in this ecounter at GSC is to try and get some perspective on how emotional I might be feeling at the time I type. If I'm too intense, I try and wait to post until later. I ain't perfect at this but I am trying to be more aware...religious ideas seem to be inherently emotionally charged for lots of people... Hope this is useful. If not, there's file 13. Cheers, Pen

For me Composer raises an issue that's important and I agree with George that we've kept playing this same card handed down to us from a long Christian theological tradition. So here are a few of my thoughts, ones that I've wrestled with for more than 20 years since leaving TWI...and a few book titles that have helped me. I have found books like God's Problem by Bart Ehrman (who is agnostic for the very reason Composer raises and that is that if God causes suffering, then who needs that?) I agree, I can say that I am agnostic if you are referring to the kind of God depicted in the Bible. But I do think there's something invisible that we don't understand completely. All the major religions have tried to articulate it. I've adjusted what I refer to as God as simply the creative/destructive energy that's in the world. For me, there is no God's will vs. Satan's type of theology anymore, but that's just me. Ehrman is helpful in outlining the different sorts of depictions of "Gods" in the O.T. and the new. Marcion taught this long ago, too, saying they were two different gods altogether. I believe I have my info straight on this, but you should check if you are interested. I think we need to remember that man's perception of God recorded in the Bible varied culture to culture, age to age. In my view, the writers used a metaphor, a word, to try and identify the energy the cause of events, etc. around them and explain things. The Bible attributes characteristics to God that are man-like, using metaphors. I think the problem is that readers of the Bible forget they are only reading metaphors (like God is our Father) and they make the metaphor the real thing. And they mistakenly say God says stuff when in actuality they are quoting the men's writings that ended up in the Bible. For myself, the history of the idea of God is well articulated by Karen Armstrong in her book, A History of God. DEFINITELY worth checking out. Just for kicks, I'll tell you that in 1991 I wrote a college paper for a college class on creation. For what it's worth, here is a bit from it: "...in Theology for a Nuclear Age, Gordon D. Kaufman makes the point that metaphors from religious traditions have caused more harm than good: for instance, in the name of God as King, nations have slaughtered other peoples, claiming them as the enemies of God. " Maybe this info is helpful to some here...perhaps food for thought anyhow... Peace, Pen

I helped do that . See my post in Relics: http://www.greasespo...c/20652-relics/

Thanks, Steve. I'll look into Philo and the rest. The "where did that idea come from" sort of question always interests me and naturally, this one does very much because in my view it affects the main premise of TWI research - inerrancy... Cheers!

Hi everyone, Perhaps this info would be more useful here in this thread rather than where I posted it yesterday in response to a comment by Robert on the old thread about my article. Anyhow, for what it's worth...I've found James Barr's works very helpful in understanding the issue of inerrancy of the scriptures, so maybe some of you might, too. roberterasmus, on 08 March 2010 - 11:25 AM, said: The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were "perfect". RE Posted Yesterday, 08:16 AM Indeed, it is. Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again. Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277: "When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. " I'd like to know when this "very early date" was. Does anyone participating in this discussion happen to know? James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death: James Barr Cheers, Pen

Can you please clarify what you mean a bit more?